Free public transport is struck by the law of unintended consequences
Welcome to 'Letters From A Tory', covering British politics from a conservative perspective. Please leave a comment if you have any thoughts about today's letter, and don't forget that you can CLICK HERE to get my letters sent to you by RSS every morning.
Dear Local Government Association,
Seeing as local government has a habit of wasting phenomenal amounts of money, it’s not often that I have any sympathy for your plight. Today I will make an exception. The law of unintended consequences often strikes good-willed policies that find little or no political opposition. The recent decision to give free bus passes to every pensioner in the country sounded wonderful, as did the decision to give free London bus travel to children several years back. Unfortunately, these plans are beginning to take their financial toll and it could even be argued that they are being abused on an enormous scale.
Local councils are saying that they may be forced to remove subsidies for other groups such as students or schoolchildren or cut support for loss-making routes because so many over-60s are taking advantage of the bus passes they were given last year. Unfortunately, our beloved Labour government is so incompetent that they couldn’t get their head round the popularity of offering free travel to every pensioner and local councils are now saying that the extra funding they were given, which they just pass on to transport operators, is not enough. I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with the moral and economic case for helping the elderly and disabled stay mobile, many of whom do not own a car or any other form of transport. However, the failure of central government to properly fund this scheme is not the only problem. It is extremely important that elderly and disabled residents can get to the shops and access local services, but I cannot see why this means that the taxpayer has to pay for them to freely travel across the entire UK after 9.30am on weekdays and all day at weekends and bank holidays. Previously concessionary travel was limited to within the boundary of the resident’s local authority, which I wholeheartedly support, but why the hell should I pay for some old dear to go on a jolly to the seaside or visit anyone she likes anywhere in the whole country?
As mentioned above, local councils might have to cut back on subsidised travel for schoolchildren. In London, this has been taken to the extreme because every single child gets completely free bus travel across London whenever and wherever they want. Free travel for small children sounds sensible as it will enable families on low incomes to access services and move around, especially if they don’t have a car, but I would be delighted if someone could explain to me why my taxes pay for families who earn a very very comfortable salary to hop on a bus for free when they are perfectly capable of getting around themselves. Why are we handing out free travel to absolutely every family when some of them can pay their own way? The social justice argument for giving free travel surely falls apart if parents are earning £200,000+ a year. Our bus network has a limited capacity and I see no reason why I should subsidise travel for someone who is able to pay themselves and makes a rational choice to use a bus to get around. Furthermore, why should teenagers up to the age of 16 get free bus travel? Subsidised maybe, but when this country is struck by major problems such as obesity and anti-social behaviour, it is totally inapppropriate to shuttle around children who should be walking between places instead. The fact that huge gangs of children can get around London and make a nuisance of themselves on public transport at the taxpayers expense is ridiculous.
I know that Labour were chasing after the ‘grey vote’ when they gave free national bus travel to pensioners and Ken Livingstone was chasing a similar goal with families by handing out free travel to every child in the whole of London. Even so, the underlying argument for giving anyone free travel has been forgotten and the taxpayer inevitably foots the bill for these increasingly burdensome schemes. Free local travel for pensioners is fine, free local travel for disabled people is fine, free local travel for low income families with young children is fine – everything else is cynical electioneering with little thought of the consequences for the taxpayer, society or the public transport network. Hard as it is for me to admit, on this one occasion I actually feel sorry for you and the local councils you represent.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with the moral and economic case for helping the elderly and disabled stay mobile, many of whom do not own a car or any other form of transport.
I would, in a way.
OK, I wouldn’t disagree with the ultimate aim of keeping them mobile, but I would disagree with the means by which it has been done – i.e. free bus passes.
When we hand out free passes, we are spending money. We are giving away money to the designated group. However, we give them that money in a form which they can only use for one purpose – for bus fares. Effectively, we decide for them how they may spend the money that we have given them.
If pensioner’s income is too low to allow them to catch a bus, then the problem lies with the level of their income not (necessarily) with the level of bus fares. The solution, therefore, is to correct the level of that income by looking at the level of the state pension. If we increase that by an amount enough to let them go to town and back twice a week (or whatever we think they need), then (a) they are free to use that money on bus travel during the summer or on heating during the winter if they feel it is too icy to go out and (b) our expenditure is defined and controlled. The policy aim is still achieved, without creating perverse incentives.
I like that angle. Giving pensioners bus passes is always a political winner but you’re right to point out that increasing their income would make sense as well.
I suppose that over-60s who don’t need to / want to use buses must be pretty peeved that others benefits when they don’t, which your suggestion would deal with.
More importantly, there must be many things which put costs on to local government, are covered by local taxation, but are there as a result of central Government diktat.
I suspect that the anecdotal increase of 100% in the “Community Charge” over the last ten years is much because of that, and to avoid the costs being funded out of general taxation breaking the NewLabour “pledge” not to increase income tax.
By the way, the bus passes aren’t that wonderful. I have a relative living in outer London who normally uses a car to make regular visits to a friend. Usual time by car; <20 mins each way. Alternative (tried once only) by four “free” buses; 2 hours each way. Are we sure that the LGA isn’t exaggerating the problem? It does like to moan, bit is loath to take action.
I actually have a free bus pass because of my MS. Great. What’s odd though is that I thought that travel was what I get £180/mo higher rate Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance for…
Mike, it’s probably quite hard to put a precise figure on exactly what the underspend is seeing as each council deals with different bus operators. I agree that local government oftens gets dumped with schemes by central government instead of being given the money to find a solution in the first place.
Buses are clearly far from perfect but I still think this scheme is a waste of money, as Shaun has wonderfully demonstrated. Free bus passes being handed out without a moment’s thought is unacceptable.
Regularly used to make a 60 mile journey home and arrived the same time as Mrs Quango’s 7 mile bus journey.
ITs all part of the crazy world of disability. Why does the DWP have a 40 page form assessed by doctors, who contact your medical professionals (consultants, GPs) to asses the claim? I’m guessing its because Disability Living Allowance is the key to the kingdom – that’s pretty much as close as you’re going to come to official recognition of being a cripple which matters for all sorts of thing. Fine. But then if you want a blue badge for parking, you get a 2 page form assessed by the Local Authority’s Social Services division (which usually turns on whether you get DLA). Same for the Bus. Why isn’t it all just automatically done by the DWP?
I suspect its to put hurdles in place to stop benefit scroungers having an easy time with a one stop shop but it also makes it very annoying for genuinely disabled people to apply for stuff and carries a clear administrative overhead cost to the taxpayer. And since scrounging is still a national sport, I’d suggest that it doesn’t work too well on either measure and this is one of the areas I would like to see reformed, both as a service user and a taxpayer!
Free Bus Passes for the elderly has been a particular bug-bear of mine for a while now. Like you, I don’t object in principle to helping pensioners use buses to get around – but I can’t do anything other than object to being entirely unable to get on bus to the local countryside (and since I live in Derby, taking a bus to the Peaks was a favourite activity before the bus passes arrived, particularly since there’s no train services beyond Matlock) because the bus is entirely full of elderly people who I am already paying for.
It’s not good for the fare-paying passengers, it’s awful for the bus companies, and it’s only really useful for ‘urban’ pensioners anyway, since rural bus services are atrocious. This whole debacle just proves the axiom “they’re not do-gooders: they’re well-meaners”.
I agree with patently: a rise in pensions would have been more useful to more people and would have had fewer negative consequences.
I think the administrative cost is a key point here. All this means testing and pointless public-sector-job-creation schemes carries costs that go far beyond the actual financial benefit given to the intended recipients. That’s one of the big reasons that I detest tax credits so much – not just their dodgy philosophy but also the number of civil servants they cost and the extra public sector pension burden that comes with it.
Seriously, administer the passes for the elderly and disabled via the DWP and make massive savings from Local Authority Social Security beaurocrats. That should cover lcal bus budet shortfalls! While strangely making the system more robust through tying it diredtlyt to a more comprehensively checked system!
Well i am a bus driver and have been for twelve years. Ive just finished a twelve hour shift in g yarmouth. You talk about the cost of this free bus pass scheme. I can tell you it is been well abused. I pick up the same people day in day out who go miles and miles for what? Just because they can. Why do you think youre council tax is rising? Yes good luck to them to be able to get around but come on it needs timlits and so many journeys. The system here is they can use it from 8.30am beleive me there there bang on. Why should my council tax and everyone elses rise to pay for this? I can hardly afford to live as it is. The people i pick up most of them the houses they own are amazing i can only dream of owning one. It should be means tested. The council here also hand out the disabled passes if someone as a cold it seems to me. Honestley you people who make the rules really need to get a grip of this its allmost like benefit fraud. Why the hell should my hard earned money pay for all this?